Should wireless broadband be net neutral?

There was an interesting-sounding panel in Washington last week about whether wireless broadband networks ought to be subject to net neutrality rules. (This presumes that anyone is subject to those rules, a question that is very much up in the air [1].) Skype, which is about a year behind schedule in its mobile VoIP development and which has no network of its own to share--though it's happy to share yours--says that 3G and 4G networks ought to be neutral. The eBay subsidiary also says that U.S. carrier's ability to control handsets and the software running on them is retarding market progress and violates the Carterfone decision. The CTIA disagrees.

To me, it's a close call. It's true that the handset business [2] is vastly more robust outside the U.S. than inside, and it's probably true that carrier control has a lot to do with that. And, generally speaking, net neutrality is a Good Thing. But Skype leeches bandwidth, and OTA bandwidth is still--and for some time will remain--precious and scarce. There could hardly be a worse poster child for wireless net neutrality than Skype. Intellectually, wireless neutrality is a must. If I were on the FCC, I'd be inclined to carve out an exception for five years or so until robust wireless broadband becomes a reality.

For more about wireless net neutrality:
- read this FierceWireless article [3]

Related Articles:
Calm words over net neutrality. Report [4]
Keeping track of net neutrality. Report [5]
Net neutrality amendment fails in committee. Report [6]